• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Aryan Invasion Deception: No, Aryans Did Not Conquer India

Status
Not open for further replies.

vgane

Well-known member
The Aryan Invasion theory is just hogwash. It was propagated by the British to prolong their stay in India and the missionaries...Post independence the theory has been milked to glory only in Tamil Nadu by the Dravidian hegemonists to divide a wedge between Brahmins & the rest. Come 21st Century many are still hooked to the theory..This article nails them all with concrete evidence

[h=1]Aryan Invasion Deception: No, Aryans Did Not Conquer India[/h] A. L. Chavda - April 20, 2018, 12:54 am
AryanInvasionDeception.jpg
Aryan Invasion Deception " data-medium-file="https://i1.wp.com/indianinterest.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/AryanInvasionDeception.jpg?fit=300%2C149" data-large-file="https://i1.wp.com/indianinterest.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/AryanInvasionDeception.jpg?fit=700%2C347" width="700" height="347">
In the 1850s, Max Müller – a German orientalist who lived in Britain most of his life – introduced the notion of an Aryan race that invaded and conquered India from Central Asia in antiquity and brought with it Hinduism and the Sanskrit language.
In the late 19th century, the British “race scientistHerbert Risley introduced the idea that the people of South India are a separate race – Dravidians – based primarily on perceived differences in skin color and language, and on the ratio of the width of a nose to its height. He also categorized the people of India into seven castes.
Then, in the 1920s, the great metropolises of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro were discovered and excavated by the British. Evidence of other settlements was also found. They called this the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). In light of this discovery, colonial historians declared that the IVC was a Dravidian civilization, which was destroyed by the invading Aryans.
These ideas were the genesis of the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), which is the foundation upon which the whole of Indian history has been written. Its central thesis has three main components:

  1. India’s original inhabitants were “dark-skinned” Dravidians, who built a peaceful, highly developed, near-utopian urban civilization in western India and present-day Pakistan: the so-called Harappan or Indus Valley Civilization.
  2. India was invaded and conquered from the West by a nomadic people called the Indo-Aryans around 1500 BCE. These Indo-Aryans were of European origin (hence white-skinned); and spoke Vedic Sanskrit. They destroyed the indigenous Dravidian civilization, subjugated the natives, and forced them to migrate to India’s South.
  3. The Indo-Aryans then composed the Vedas, and imposed Hinduism and the caste system upon the Dravidians and other indigenous peoples of India.
The AIT was further modified in the 20th century. The newer iteration of the theory is called the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory. It posits that the Aryans migrated into India rather than invaded it.
After independence, despite a de-facto moratorium on historical research in India’s universities, striking archaeological evidence began to emerge that many of the traditions and customs prevalent in the IVC continue to exist in modern India. Unmistakable evidence emerged that the mighty river Sarasvati mentioned extensively in ancient Indian texts did indeed exist, and that the Rigveda, India’s foundational literary text, was composed closer to c. 5,000 BCE when the Sarasvati was last in its prime, than to c. 1,500 BCE when the Aryans are supposed to have conquered India.
In short, there exists voluminous archaeological, literary, and linguistic evidence that consistently and repeatedly demonstrates that “Vedic” and “Harappan” are respectively literary and material facets of the same civilization. Furthermore, there exists literary as well as archaeological evidence that Sanskrit-speaking Indians migrated out of India and conquered lands thousands of kilometers west of India.
In the 21st century, advances in the science of genetics started giving researchers an unprecedented ability to uncover the details of humanity’s past. Studies have shown that the genetic lineage (haplogroup) associated with the Indo-European languages originated in India 15,450 to 18,000 years ago.
For a summary of the archaeological, literary, linguistic, and genetic evidence available until May 2017, please refer to this article.
A new study appeared recently, which documents population dynamics in Central and South Asia in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE. It was co-directed by David Reich of Harvard Medical School. It was quickly followed by the publication of two opinion pieces – one by Tony Joseph in the Quint, and the other by a mysterious, anonymous author in the Economist, both claiming that the study’s results support and confirm the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory.
Joseph is well known for his advocacy of the AIT; I have in the past debunked his shoddy, error-riddled and deceptive attempt to “settle” the Aryan invasion debate. The article in the Economist has a vindictive, gloating tone, it proclaims that the “treasured” “Out of India” theory has been “squelched”; and goes on to announce that the Aryans did not come from India; they conquered it.
An analysis of Reich et al.’s study reveals that these conclusions are incorrect.
The study analyzed DNA from 612 ancient individuals, including 65 ancient South Asian individuals from the Swat Valley in present-day northern Pakistan (1200 BCE – 1 CE). The data was co-analyzed with genome-wide data from present-day individuals, 1,789 of which were from 246 ethnographically-distinct groups in South Asia.
The study finds evidence between 3100 – 2200 BCE, in Turkmenistan and Iran, of population groups that have Indian ancestry. It hypothesizes that these Indian-ancestry individuals were recent migrants from the IVC. In other words, this is evidence of westward migration of Indians. The study also finds evidence of Indian ancestry in individuals living in the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) between 2300 – 1400 BCE.
Reich et al. find that migrants from the Central Asian Steppe integrated into the Indian population along the northern fringe of the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), in Swat Valley (present-day Pakistan), between 1200 BCE – 1 CE. This mixed population is genetically similar to present-day people of Swat Valley. They call this the “Indus periphery” group.
They estimate that Iranian ancestry must have reached the Indus Valley by the 4th millennium BCE. They find that Indus Periphery related people are the single most important source of ancestry in South Asia today, with significant contributions to North Indian as well as South Indian population groups.
In short, the study confirms that there were migrations of people with Iranian as well as Central Asian Steppe ancestry into India at various times between the 4th and the 2nd millennium BCE.
At first glance, this appears to be game, set, and match in favor of the AIT. There is proof of migrations into India, after all, from Iran and Central Asia, and that too around the 2nd millennium BCE, when the IVC is known to have declined.
However, there is more to this than meets the eye. Let us examine what is missing from Reich et al.’s study.
First, and most importantly, Reich et al. did not have access to ancient Harappan (IVC) DNA. Without this crucial evidence, the study is unable to reach any definitive conclusion about the origin of the people of the IVC.
The paper explicitly states that
We do not have access to any DNA directly sampled from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC)”
and that
Without ancient DNA from individuals buried in IVC cultural contexts, we cannot rule out the possibility that the group represented by these outlier individuals, which we call Indus_Periphery, was limited to the northern fringe and not representative of the ancestry of the entire Indus Valley Civilization population.”
The study is therefore unable to find any evidence that the people of the IVC were “Dravidians” or AASI (Ancient Ancestral South Indians).
Second, it is beyond the study’s scope to determine the language and the culture of the IVC.
Third, the study does not in any way invalidate the results of previous studies which have shown that the genetic lineage (haplogroup) associated with the Indo-European languages originated in India 15,450 to 18,000 years ago.
These results indicate that the Iranian and Central Asian Steppe immigrants were themselves the descendants of ancient Indians, and that their “migration” into India was therefore, in effect, a homecoming. These results also indicate that the people of the IVC were genetically similar to the Iranian and Steppe migrants.
Fourth, Reich et al. make no mention of the term “Aryan”, and merely speculate that migrants from the Steppe may have brought Vedic culture in India. This is mere speculation; the study does not furnish any evidence that would support such a hypothesis. It therefore fails to establish any evidence of the migrants being Aryans, or of them bringing Vedic culture into India.
Fifth, the study does not assess the scale of the migration (how many individuals migrated, in how many pulses/waves).
In the light of these five points, can the study confirm that the migrants were “Aryans”? No, it cannot. It’s beyond the study’s scope.
Can the study identify the ethnic or genetic origin of the original inhabitants IVC? Can it identify their language or culture? No, it cannot. Again, it’s beyond the study’s scope.
Does the study demonstrate that the migrants brought Sanskrit and Vedic culture into India? No, it does not.
Does the study confirm that there was an “Aryan invasion/migration”? No, it does not.
Thus, on examining Reich et al.’s paper in the larger context, we find that it does not, in any shape or form, confirm the AIT. Rather, we find that it is limited in scope, and that its results fit quite well within a larger cycle of back-and-forth population migrations whose most common recent ancestor (MRCA) originated in India.
It is therefore clear that the articles published in the Quint and the Economist are works of fiction; they have no basis in fact. They are the journalistic equivalent of ball tampering. Their conclusion that “Aryans” invaded India (or migrated thereto) is deceptive and incorrect.
The fact that there were migrations into India should not surprise anyone. Human history is a history of migrations, and recent discoveries in Asia are beginning to convince historians that the story of our species needs rewriting again.
We know of many peoples that migrated into India: Greeks, Scythians, Kushans (Tocharians), and Huns, among others. Modern India’s population is undoubtedly mixed; an amalgamation of these various ethnicities. Some of India’s greatest leaders were immigrants. Take the great emperor Kanishka, for example, who was a Kushan. He forged a great empire that included much of the Tarim river basin. He worked tirelessly to foster Indian culture and values and promote them throughout Asia. He valued Indian lives and pursued India’s national interest. I daresay he was more Indian than most Indians alive today.
The central question of the Aryan Invasion debate is therefore not about the genetic origin of the Indian people. There is no such thing as a pure race or ethnicity. There isn’t even such a thing as a pure species. The central question of the debate concerns the origin of Indian culture, and that of Hinduism, to be specific.
This is the reason why the debate is intensely political and controversial. Large sections of India’s political spectrum seek to portray Hinduism and Sanskrit as the culture of invaders and oppressors, the oppressed being the Dravidians and the Dalits. It is vitally important for them that the AIT remains the dominant narrative in India. It is critical for them to keep spinning a narrative that favors the AIT. History has shown that they will stop at nothing, including deception and outright lies.
The Quint and Economist articles are symptoms of this political ecosystem’s foot soldiers – sepoys – at work.
There exists a vast amount of archaeological, literary, linguistic, and genetic evidence which, taken together, clearly demonstrates that India’s unique culture and civilization emerged and developed within India’s distinctive geography, and that they form an unbroken continuum that spans several millennia and continues to the present day. This is an inconvenient fact that the aforementioned sepoys are working hard to obfuscate.
Reich et al.’s paper represents the dawn of genetic research into India’s ancient past. One hopes that it will spur more research in the field. There is a long way to go. Much more work will have to be done, much more data analyzed, before a clear picture of India’s genetic past (and indeed, that of the world) emerges.
The only thing that will settle the “Aryan Invasion/Migration” debate once and for all is a large-scale genetic study of ancient DNA from ancient IVC individuals. This should include a large number (several hundred, ideally) of pre-5000 BCE individuals, including pre-7000 BCE individuals.
At present, there is no such project in the pipeline. If such a project fructifies, it will take several years, probably over a decade, to complete, due to the scale and complexity of the work involved.
One thing is sure: the question of the origin of the Indian people isn’t going to be “settled” anytime soon. Settle down, folks. We’re in for a long ride.



2a615d6b8291823539a76de03096db96
[h=4]About A. L. Chavda[/h]A. L. Chavda is a theoretical physicist whose research interests include dark matter, dark energy, black hole physics, quantum gravity, and the physics of the very early universe.

http://indianinterest.com/indology/aryan-invasion-deception-no-aryans-didnt-conquer-india/
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
If everyone was so smart why everyone fell for it?
I feel its time to just give 2 Fs to which invasion theory..there would have been some migration of humans just like now many Indians migrate to USA..so is it Indian Migration to USA a form of Invasion too?

So if now we see humans migrating and moving about here and there surely in the past humans too moved about...what matters is NOW.
Past is past...DNA would show diversity of any kind but that does not really matter and I feel there is no use blaming any Dravidian for milking this theory too cos even Brahmins too believe this theory and do admit they are Aryans..so both are to be blamed if we still want to play the blame game.

I feel one should not live in the past..sings about past glory etc but screw up the present.
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
If everyone was so smart why everyone fell for it?
I feel its time to just give 2 Fs to which invasion theory..there would have been some migration of humans just like now many Indians migrate to USA..so is it Indian Migration to USA a form of Invasion too?

So if now we see humans migrating and moving about here and there surely in the past humans too moved about...what matters is NOW.
Past is past...DNA would show diversity of any kind but that does not really matter and I feel there is no use blaming any Dravidian for milking this theory too cos even Brahmins too believe this theory and do admit they are Aryans..so both are to be blamed if we still want to play the blame game.

I feel one should not live in the past..sings about past glory etc but screw up the present.


Well said.

If you start with a postulation you can always find selective evidence to prove it.
Philip Morris a tobacco giant used to fund research, in effect of tobacco. They bought all findings, then selectively release only the findings that were favorable to their position, and kill others that were not favorable to their POV.

Humans migrated all the time. There are no pure races or ethnicities.

There was a definite influence of People living in modern Iran on Hinduism and Zoroastrianism.
The similarities cannot be explained as coincidences.
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
[FONT=q_serif](This is a side note, but several thousands of years before the spread of Indo-Aryan languages into India, there was a mass-migration from Central Asia or the Middle East. Geneticists call this group of people ANI, neolithic farmers who completely mixed with the people who were in India prior to this event, some 10,000 years ago, ASI. Both the Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages were latergrafted onto this population. Many people may not realize this, but Dravidian languages were also introduced into the subcontinent via elite-dominance and small migrations of farmers probably from Iran, probably around 3,500 BCE. The original languages of the subcontinent probably vaguely resembled those of the Andaman Islands…and Burushaski, a language isolate in Gilgit).[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
One final thing: archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics aren’t random, politicized fields of study promoting one agenda or another (at least, not good archaeology). They are sciences. People advocating theories may just be following the facts, they may not have “agendas.” There are way too many armchair researchers who simply don’t understand the methodology of this field.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-proof-to-support-the-theory-of-Aryan-migration-into-India
[/FONT]
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Lines of descent

Until recently, only data on mtDNA (or matrilineal DNA, transmitted only from mother to daughter) were available and that seemed to suggest there was little external infusion into the Indian gene pool over the last 12,500 years or so. New Y-DNA data has turned that conclusion upside down, with strong evidence of external infusion of genes into the Indian male lineage during the period in question.

The reason for the difference in mtDNA and Y-DNA data is obvious in hindsight: there was strong sex bias in Bronze Age migrations. In other words, those who migrated were predominantly male and, therefore, those gene flows do not really show up in the mtDNA data. On the other hand, they do show up in the Y-DNA data: specifically, about 17.5% of Indian male lineage has been found to belong to haplogroup R1a (haplogroups identify a single line of descent), which is today spread across Central Asia, Europe and South Asia. Pontic-Caspian Steppe is seen as the region from where R1a spread both west and east, splitting into different sub-branches along the way.


The paper that put all of the recent discoveries together into a tight and coherent history of migrations into India was published just three months ago in a peer-reviewed journal called ‘BMC Evolutionary Biology’. In that paper, titled “A Genetic Chronology for the Indian Subcontinent Points to Heavily Sex-biased Dispersals”, 16 scientists led by Prof. Martin P. Richards of the University of Huddersfield, U.K., concluded: “Genetic influx from Central Asia in the Bronze Age was strongly male-driven, consistent with the patriarchal, patrilocal and patrilineal social structure attributed to the inferred pastoralist early Indo-European society. This was part of a much wider process of Indo-European expansion, with an ultimate source in the Pontic-Caspian region, which carried closely related Y-chromosome lineages… across a vast swathe of Eurasia between 5,000 and 3,500 years ago”.


In an email exchange, Prof. Richards said the prevalence of R1a in India was “very powerful evidence for a substantial Bronze Age migration from central Asia that most likely brought Indo-European speakers to India.” The robust conclusions of Professor Richards and his team rest on their own substantive research as well as a vast trove of new data and findings that have become available in recent years, through the work of genetic scientists around the world.

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/how-genetics-is-settling-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19090301.ece
JUNE 19, 2017
 
Last edited:

biswa

New member
Sure, there may be genes coming from all over the place. But is there a clear indication that one set of genes is superior to another? In what way is fair skin superior to dark skin (the cause of most angst in India) ?
 
Sure, there may be genes coming from all over the place. But is there a clear indication that one set of genes is superior to another? In what way is fair skin superior to dark skin (the cause of most angst in India) ?

The claim is that the fair skin oppressed the dark skin. Therefore some sort of superiority is naturally imputed by these claims.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Sure, there may be genes coming from all over the place. But is there a clear indication that one set of genes is superior to another? In what way is fair skin superior to dark skin (the cause of most angst in India) ?

Oye..how many in India are Nordic white?
Its just a few shades lighter or darker.

Skin color is just melanin or lack of it.

Nothing superior or inferior.
 

KRN

Active member
Sure, there may be genes coming from all over the place. But is there a clear indication that one set of genes is superior to another? In what way is fair skin superior to dark skin (the cause of most angst in India) ?

stereotypes everywhere....remember "dumb blonde"
 

biswa

New member
Trump seems to confirm the stereotype.

Now here is a smart blonde: Amy Schumer. But she is Jewish, so there's another stereotype.
 

100and9

Member
Well, whether there was an actual migration or not is irrelevant. There is a very manifest sense of Aryan identity in India. Just last year, my kalari guru (who happens to be a Tully Brahmin) was bragging about his European Aryan background.

All that said, I blogged about my 8 month exploration into Indian Shamanism or Brahmanism. Arm-chair 'scholars' can cite wordplay and come up with any conclusion. I suggest traveling and really studying people.

https://medium.com/@100and9/the-reign-of-aryan-brahminism-in-india-a326337248d9
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks